Posted on 12/13/2012 7:26:33 AM PST by SeekAndFind
Via Mediaite, this is worth watching if only to see McCaskill mouth a bit of ancient biological determinism that would have set the left off on a two-day screech bender had she been a Republican man. I think the clip's worst sin is how cloying it is: Diane Sawyer decided to bring the women of the Senate together to talk about capital-w Women, so naturally some self-serving CW about capital-w Women must get said. Thank you, Susan Collins, for handling the easy lay-up. I'd like to hear more from her and McC about why compromise is a virtue in itself (especially since the fiscal cliff is a product of bipartisan compromise) and how standing firm because you're committed to your economic beliefs is really just a form of male pigheadedness. Don't you hate how men refuse to ask for directions when they're lost? And how they whine when you ask them to concede on billions of new taxes on small businesses?
Speaking of compromise, Keith Hennessey's got a bipartisan plan in mind in case all else fails. It’s not one he likes and it’s not one he wants to see the House pass, but it might get the GOP a bit more leverage at the table with O:
I think option C is S. 3412, a bill passed by the Senate in July. The short description is that this bill extends the middle class tax relief for one year and allows tax cuts for the rich to expire. More precisely, here is what the bill does (Joint Tax table is here):
It extends for one year all current income tax rates for incomes < $200K (single) and <$250K (married);
For one year it keeps the capital gains rate at 15% for the same incomes as above;
For one year it (explicitly) raises the capital gains and dividends rates to 20% for incomes >$200K/$250K;
It extends for one year other provisions of current law, important and not-so-important: marriage penalty relief and the child credit, education tax relief, and a handful of smaller provisions; and
It patches the AMT for 2012…I detest S. 3412 and do not want it to become law. But I fear that Congressional Republicans are so afraid of being blamed for a no-bill scenario that they will agree to support a hypothetical Obama-Boehner deal that is even worse. They should not do that. They must not do that.
In other words, the GOP would give in on tax hikes on the rich — a prospect that Republicans generally and even some prominent tea partiers seem increasingly resigned to — but it’d be for just one year, thus limiting the economic damage done and buying time for deliberations over tax reform. And because 3412 passed the Senate entirely with Democratic votes, theoretically Obama would have no choice but to sign it if it passed the House now. It’s already “the Democratic plan.” But then, the point here isn’t to get Obama to sign it; it’s to pressure him to make further concessions by threatening him with a short-term bill pre-approved by Democrats that would deny him a debt-ceiling hike, permanent tax hikes on the rich, new stimulus spending, and lots of other goodies he’s looking for in a “grand bargain.” It’s a play for a bit more leverage in negotiations. Just one question for Hennessey: Why does he think O would fear vetoing a Democratic bill now when it was passed months before the election? If Boehner passed it, Obama dismiss it by insisting that voters changed the game in November and granted him a mandate on liberal budgetary priorities, such that the Democratic Senate would also surely reject 3412 if it came before them again now. (Reid would give him plenty of cover on that.) Maybe it’s worth the House passing the bill anyway just because it’d put Obama on the defensive in explaining why he prefers going over the cliff to signing a Democratic bill, but I put nothing past the media when it comes to shaping public opinion against Republicans. Obama’s done an expert job of framing the entire deficit reduction debate as an argument over tax hikes on the rich and little else. If he rejected 3412 because it doesn’t make those tax hikes permanent, what’s Boehner’s move then?
I’ll leave you with Philip Klein on why the “no surrender” option isn’t much of an option either. Exit quotation: “What happens [after we go over the cliff] when Harry Reid holds a vote on a bill that lowers rates on the middle class? Will Republican senators vote against it? If so, their challengers can run ads attacking them for voting against a massive middle-class tax cut. What does that do to the brand? And when, in all likelihood, such a bill passes with near-unanimous support in the Senate, what does it do to the House GOP’s low-tax brand if their members resist, bottle up or vote against the same tax cut?”
No surprise there. Democrat female senators strongly outnumber Republican female senators, and most of the Republicans are liberals.
So the fiscal cliff would be averted by giving Obama everything he wanted, and the Republicans would get blamed for any failure.
There may be a reason why no civilized society in recorded history has ever been a matriarchy.
It’s the bar scene from Star Wars!
If true conservatives were in power, there wouldn’t be talk of fiscal cliffs.
I SECOND THAT MOTION!
Good God... Repeal the 19th Amendment.
What a joke. These fem-idiot Dems would make America into one big dream-act social welfare state where war and guns were banned. Not that this would stop anyone from taking advantage and attacking us economically and militarily. These idiots should be cooking and cleaning and doing laundry but I am sure they would cook lousy food that would poison any husband. They are all rich enough to hire cooks and do
How did their children turn out? This is a good test.
Four amendments in the Progressive era, one down already, two more need to go.
Don’t care which two, just pick any two and make them go away.
gynocracy! what a laugh
"B#tch! Get your booger hook off the bang-switch!"
The bloated brunette behind her is in luuuuuuuuuuv ...
The CEO of the company I work for is a woman (and a Dem. to boot). Under her "leadership" employee benefits, pay, and consequently morale has dropped like a rock.
Not that I ever bought into that idea of women being more compassionate leaders, but this CEO's time certainly is a data point against the theory.
Women having power in government = socialist government.
There is nothing my Lady likes more at the end of the day than when I say:
“Tell me about the woman at work who makes you the most angry.”
Try it, Fellas. But get comfy.
We all have strengths and weaknesses. I’ve had to listen these female myths my entire life. It’s just old and silly.
Yep math is hard.
Wow! They look absolutely tantalizing compared to the Democrat Orc females.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.